The D5 is no lightweight to begin with...But the V8 model is really HEAVY.
11-12-2019, 09:53 AM
#1
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
The D5 is no lightweight to begin with...But the V8 model is really HEAVY.
I just noticed these curb weight differentials. Had read long ago when the D5 was first being launched that instead of shedding weight the new model would actually be heavier--But how heavy the D5 is compared to the D4...WOW. Compared to my D4 4.0T V8 at 4619 lbs., both the D5 3.0T and 4.0T models could affectionately be called "porkers". Guess all the additional electronics weights these babies down pretty good. At approaching 5,000 lbs, the V8 D5 really does need all 487ft-lbs of torque to get that beast moving!
A8L 55 TFSI - 4,773
A8L 60 TFSI - 4,905
Can't wait to get behind the wheel of my very own PORKER!!! :-))
D5 A8L Curb weight (lbs)
A8L 55 TFSI - 4,773A8L 60 TFSI - 4,905
Can't wait to get behind the wheel of my very own PORKER!!! :-))
Last edited by derfA8L; 11-12-2019 at 01:20 PM.
The following users liked this post:
gk1 (11-13-2019)
11-12-2019, 02:06 PM
#2
AudiWorld Super User
"Oink oink my good man."
Rusty Griswold
Makes me feel like my S6 is a relative lightweight at a measured 4400 lbs.
Also makes me wonder how much "efficiency" of the mild hybrid is lost due to the additional weight of the system itself...
If you go by the EPA it is significant since the 2015 D4 4.0T was 18/29 mpg and the D5 4.0T is an abysmal 15/23 although something did change in the EPA ratings like for the S6 where the early D4's have a better rating than the later ones so the drop to the D5 appears less dramatic now.
2015 D4 4.0T 18/29
2018 D4 4.0T 16/26
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...42241&id=40942
Sorta makes me wonder what that hybrid portion is actually doing if it's not factored into the EPA's fuel economy figures.
I'd like to think just a redesign alone of the 4.0T without hybrid should have net some better efficiencies. A theoretical D5 4.0T non-hybrid should have at least had the mpg figures of the D5 3.0T.
Angry... what happened?
Rusty Griswold
Makes me feel like my S6 is a relative lightweight at a measured 4400 lbs.
Also makes me wonder how much "efficiency" of the mild hybrid is lost due to the additional weight of the system itself...
If you go by the EPA it is significant since the 2015 D4 4.0T was 18/29 mpg and the D5 4.0T is an abysmal 15/23 although something did change in the EPA ratings like for the S6 where the early D4's have a better rating than the later ones so the drop to the D5 appears less dramatic now.
2015 D4 4.0T 18/29
2018 D4 4.0T 16/26
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...42241&id=40942
Sorta makes me wonder what that hybrid portion is actually doing if it's not factored into the EPA's fuel economy figures.
I'd like to think just a redesign alone of the 4.0T without hybrid should have net some better efficiencies. A theoretical D5 4.0T non-hybrid should have at least had the mpg figures of the D5 3.0T.
Angry... what happened?
Last edited by gk1; 11-12-2019 at 02:08 PM.
The following users liked this post:
angrypengu (11-13-2019)
The following users liked this post:
gk1 (11-13-2019)
11-13-2019, 04:12 AM
#4
AudiWorld Super User
"Oink oink my good man."
Rusty Griswold
Makes me feel like my S6 is a relative lightweight at a measured 4400 lbs.
Also makes me wonder how much "efficiency" of the mild hybrid is lost due to the additional weight of the system itself...
If you go by the EPA it is significant since the 2015 D4 4.0T was 18/29 mpg and the D5 4.0T is an abysmal 15/23 although something did change in the EPA ratings like for the S6 where the early D4's have a better rating than the later ones so the drop to the D5 appears less dramatic now.
2015 D4 4.0T 18/29
2018 D4 4.0T 16/26
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...42241&id=40942
Sorta makes me wonder what that hybrid portion is actually doing if it's not factored into the EPA's fuel economy figures.
I'd like to think just a redesign alone of the 4.0T without hybrid should have net some better efficiencies. A theoretical D5 4.0T non-hybrid should have at least had the mpg figures of the D5 3.0T.
Angry... what happened?
Rusty Griswold
Makes me feel like my S6 is a relative lightweight at a measured 4400 lbs.
Also makes me wonder how much "efficiency" of the mild hybrid is lost due to the additional weight of the system itself...
If you go by the EPA it is significant since the 2015 D4 4.0T was 18/29 mpg and the D5 4.0T is an abysmal 15/23 although something did change in the EPA ratings like for the S6 where the early D4's have a better rating than the later ones so the drop to the D5 appears less dramatic now.
2015 D4 4.0T 18/29
2018 D4 4.0T 16/26
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...42241&id=40942
Sorta makes me wonder what that hybrid portion is actually doing if it's not factored into the EPA's fuel economy figures.
I'd like to think just a redesign alone of the 4.0T without hybrid should have net some better efficiencies. A theoretical D5 4.0T non-hybrid should have at least had the mpg figures of the D5 3.0T.
Angry... what happened?
https://www.cars.com/articles/epa-re...1420690830380/
P0 and onwards hybridization is really there to address CO2 emissions (as well as to maximize fuel economy). That said though, given the variance in testing it's hard to compare apples to apples, and the vast majority of the fuel savings that come from mild hybridizing (is that a word?!) cars is not realized in the current iteration (P0). It's really P1 and onwards where 'real' advantages that outweigh the cost (weight) of these systems come into play.
For example, on the D5, we still have a traditional starter motor because the BSG is not used to start the vehicle in any condition other than when the SS system is engaged (e.g. when you 'literally' start the car by pressing the button, the traditional starter motor is always used). P1 and onwards mean shedding the starter motor (actually, weird, the integrated starter generator (ISG) on the P0 Mercedes systems start a cold engine as well, and they have ditched the traditional starter already). I suspect the variance between the MB/Audi system is risk related...I mean, even on the P0 MB implementation they've completely ditched any and all pulleys, and gone towards electric AC cooling (among other things).
I don't know why Audi didn't adopt the more MB approach to things as Audi is usually more cutting edge - especially when it comes to engine design. Dieselgate may have held them back (just a guess), but really for the D5 we're literally at the polar opposite of having our cake and eating it too. We have heavy cars that don't benefit from the mild hybrid implementation - which, for a guy who is intent on holding onto the D5 forever, is music to my ears!
Given the EPA's in town test cycles, getting rid of the hybrid would most likely cause a decrease in fuel milage - however given the D4 had a SS system as well, maybe the difference may be negligible. Given the constant Audi messaging about the alleged 'smootheness' of the SS system due to the mild hybrid components, maybe all that weight was just there to improve the 'feel' of the engine cycling on/off due to the addition of the BSG.
OTOH hand though, I suspect the real weight changes to the D5 are not just because of all of the extra
Last edited by angrypengu; 11-13-2019 at 04:16 AM.
The following users liked this post:
gk1 (11-13-2019)
11-13-2019, 07:42 AM
#5
AudiWorld Super User
What sucks is they kept it so quiet and didn't "revise" older cars to the new standards so in cases like this were the model crosses over the EPA changes you see this discrepancy. If you look at for example a 2001 they have a link to view the original sticker vs. the revision they made years ago, not even this recent 2017 revision. It is just annoying since they make such a big deal about these figures and are the largest numbers on the window sticker, yet they fail at getting those numbers correct for years...
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/comp...shtml#id=16581
As far as emissions if the EPA numbers are correct or "to be believed" the CO2 for the V8 went up from (415 or 466) to 495, so even there is no improvement.
No disrespect, but if the D5 A8 wasn't such a nice car it would seem from an outside perspective like a step backward. At least in regard to mpg, emissions, weight, added complexity for almost no benefit.
If what you are saying is true and the D5 is really a stepping stone in hybridization improvements, it seems like the A8's long life-cycle won't benefit from this step-wise approach. Not to mention I still strongly feel they will quickly abandon hybrid for the A8 e-tron.
I almost, almost, feels like Audi intended on many D4 owners doing exactly what derf did and go from a D4 4.0T to a D5 3.0T.
It manages all the aforementioned issues while providing adequate acceleration for its intended market and since all the things that make the A8 "nice" like ride quality/comfort and interior are identical it makes sense.
Just an opinion anyway, not picking a fight.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/comp...shtml#id=16581
As far as emissions if the EPA numbers are correct or "to be believed" the CO2 for the V8 went up from (415 or 466) to 495, so even there is no improvement.
No disrespect, but if the D5 A8 wasn't such a nice car it would seem from an outside perspective like a step backward. At least in regard to mpg, emissions, weight, added complexity for almost no benefit.
If what you are saying is true and the D5 is really a stepping stone in hybridization improvements, it seems like the A8's long life-cycle won't benefit from this step-wise approach. Not to mention I still strongly feel they will quickly abandon hybrid for the A8 e-tron.
I almost, almost, feels like Audi intended on many D4 owners doing exactly what derf did and go from a D4 4.0T to a D5 3.0T.
It manages all the aforementioned issues while providing adequate acceleration for its intended market and since all the things that make the A8 "nice" like ride quality/comfort and interior are identical it makes sense.
Just an opinion anyway, not picking a fight.
The following users liked this post:
angrypengu (11-13-2019)
11-13-2019, 07:44 AM
#6
AudiWorld Super User
What sucks is they kept it so quiet and didn't "revise" older cars to the new standards so in cases like this were the model crosses over the EPA changes you see this discrepancy. If you look at for example a 2001 they have a link to view the original sticker vs. the revision they made years ago, not even this recent 2017 revision. It is just annoying since they make such a big deal about these figures and are the largest numbers on the window sticker, yet they fail at getting those numbers correct for years...
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/comp...shtml#id=16581
As far as emissions if the EPA numbers are correct or "to be believed" the CO2 for the V8 went up from (415 or 466) to 495, so even there is no improvement.
No disrespect, but if the D5 A8 wasn't such a nice car it would seem from an outside perspective like a step backward. At least in regard to mpg, emissions, weight, added complexity for almost no benefit.
If what you are saying is true and the D5 is really a stepping stone in hybridization improvements, it seems like the A8's long life-cycle won't benefit from this step-wise approach. Not to mention I still strongly feel they will quickly abandon hybrid for the A8 e-tron.
I almost, almost, feels like Audi intended on many D4 owners doing exactly what derf did and go from a D4 4.0T to a D5 3.0T.
It manages all the aforementioned issues while providing adequate acceleration for its intended market and since all the things that make the A8 "nice" like ride quality/comfort and interior are identical it makes sense.
Just an opinion anyway, not picking a fight.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/comp...shtml#id=16581
As far as emissions if the EPA numbers are correct or "to be believed" the CO2 for the V8 went up from (415 or 466) to 495, so even there is no improvement.
No disrespect, but if the D5 A8 wasn't such a nice car it would seem from an outside perspective like a step backward. At least in regard to mpg, emissions, weight, added complexity for almost no benefit.
If what you are saying is true and the D5 is really a stepping stone in hybridization improvements, it seems like the A8's long life-cycle won't benefit from this step-wise approach. Not to mention I still strongly feel they will quickly abandon hybrid for the A8 e-tron.
I almost, almost, feels like Audi intended on many D4 owners doing exactly what derf did and go from a D4 4.0T to a D5 3.0T.
It manages all the aforementioned issues while providing adequate acceleration for its intended market and since all the things that make the A8 "nice" like ride quality/comfort and interior are identical it makes sense.
Just an opinion anyway, not picking a fight.
I'd pay a premium, even (up front) to not have any of the 48V systems so I don't have to deal with the future headaches!
11-13-2019, 08:19 AM
#7
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
...I almost, almost, feels like Audi intended on many D4 owners doing exactly what derf did and go from a D4 4.0T to a D5 3.0T.
It manages all the aforementioned issues while providing adequate acceleration for its intended market and since all the things that make the A8 "nice" like ride quality/comfort and interior are identical it makes sense.
It manages all the aforementioned issues while providing adequate acceleration for its intended market and since all the things that make the A8 "nice" like ride quality/comfort and interior are identical it makes sense.
The following 2 users liked this post by derfA8L:
angrypengu (11-13-2019),
gk1 (11-13-2019)
Trending Topics
11-13-2019, 08:31 AM
#8
AudiWorld Super User
11-13-2019, 08:41 AM
#9
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Very devilish of you, very evil 😒. I ultimately couldn’t justify the $13K V8 upcharge on the A8L, so going the S8L route would really require some twisted financial self-deception. Besides, my company would wish me well with the car in all my “future endeavors”. I’ll stick with the “lowly” 3.0T ☺️
The following users liked this post:
gk1 (11-13-2019)